PER CURIAM: William Andrew Lee was tried and convicted for the
murder and attempted armed robbery of Harvey Wells at a car wash in Spartanburg
County in 2008. Lee contends the trial court committed reversible error by
allowing a police officer to testify that Wells told him "two people"
were involved in the shooting and attempted robbery because this evidence was
inadmissible hearsay, not a dying declaration. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Crocker, 366 S.C. 394, 408, 621 S.E.2d 890, 897 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The
admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of
the trial court and [,] absent clear abuse, will not be disturbed on
appeal."); Rule 804(b)(2), SCRE (stating an exception to the hearsay rule
exists "[i]n a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or
proceeding," when the declarant's statement was made "while believing
that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances
of what the declarant believed to be impending death."); State v.
McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 93, 544 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2001) ("A declarant does
not have to express, in direct terms, his awareness of his condition for his
statement to be admissible as a dying declaration. The necessary state of mind
can be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the
declaration.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this
case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.